DomainK Posted September 11, 2012 Author Posted September 11, 2012 This obviously has both pros and cons. What equal right does the wife have on her husbands earnings? What if the husband refuses to give his wife a portion of that money? Can the wife approach a court claiming her fundamental right in the marriage was denied? Community property? What do you mean by that? Both are equal owners only in the titular sense. I think only the legal owner can lease or sell the said property. I don't think the same income would be taxed twice. Women have a higher minimum tax income and the husbands shouldn't be dumb enough to exceed that limit for the year. :cantstop: This scheme may not be that bad. It would probably make a difference in rural areas, where the wife isn't educated and is completely dependent on her husband. Expected better than that from you counselor. http://lawquestinternational.com/fundamental-new-bill-will-give-women-equal-share-0 http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/marriage-laws-cabinet-wife-gets-right-in-husband-property/1/179122.html http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-23/india/31229593_1_irretrievable-breakdown-wife-moves-divorce As far as uneducated women in rural areas are concerned, it's more a question of awareness, not of adequacy of law or legal provision.
beetle Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 There is merit to th point that this makes the wife subservient to the husband rather than being an equal partner. Rather than this ...the law should make both partners joint owner of all property and wealth earned during the married life irrespective of who earned what and on whose name the property was bought or registered.This removes the gender bias also.
Mariyam Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Expected better than that from you counselor. http://lawquestinternational.com/fundamental-new-bill-will-give-women-equal-share-0 http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/marriage-laws-cabinet-wife-gets-right-in-husband-property/1/179122.html http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-23/india/31229593_1_irretrievable-breakdown-wife-moves-divorce As far as uneducated women in rural areas are concerned, it's more a question of awareness, not of adequacy of law or legal provision. TFS, I really wasn't aware of this amendment in the Marriage Laws Bill. From your article, this caught my eye ....Law automatically presumes joint ownership in the nonexistence of explicit substantiation that would indicate to a contrary conclusion for a particular portion of property. The community property structure is vindicated by the idea that such joint ownership identifies the theoretically equal contributions of both spouses to the making and functioning of the family entity. Division of community property may take place by item, by dividing all items or by value... Makes it clear that by default the Law presumes joint ownership unless otherwise mentioned explicitly by one of the parties. DK, I owe you an apology here. :icflove:
Crookbond Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 There is merit to th point that this makes the wife subservient to the husband rather than being an equal partner. Rather than this ...the law should make both partners joint owner of all property and wealth earned during the married life irrespective of who earned what and on whose name the property was bought or registered.This removes the gender bias also. Wait ... what? :facepalm: How does this even make sense? Property one can understand but wealth. The simple rule should be that these things should be equity based not equality based. There's important difference between the two.
India-KXIP fan Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 There is merit to th point that this makes the wife subservient to the husband rather than being an equal partner. Rather than this ...the law should make both partners joint owner of all property and wealth earned during the married life irrespective of who earned what and on whose name the property was bought or registered.This removes the gender bias also. The law should stay out of it (infact it will). The money should be under account holders name otherwise too many people would exploit.
DomainK Posted September 12, 2012 Author Posted September 12, 2012 TFS, I really wasn't aware of this amendment in the Marriage Laws Bill. From your article, this caught my eye Makes it clear that by default the Law presumes joint ownership unless otherwise mentioned explicitly by one of the parties. DK, I owe you an apology here. :icflove: No need to apologize. I just keep myself a bit updated on marriage laws. One has to know the jungle before ones goes in hunting.
Trichromatic Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 No need to apologize. I just keep myself a bit updated on marriage laws. One has to know the jungle before ones goes in hunting. :cantstop:
Raghav_12 Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Would be another law that will be more abused than used. Will be used by financially independent and self suffiecient women to harass their husbands if marriage runs into acrimony while majority of women in rural areas would continue suffering without being impacted by this law. In any case, this monhly income would be more like alimony as marriage is not likely to survive if matters have reached to court, to get monthly income or otherwise.
ravishingravi Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 There is merit to th point that this makes the wife subservient to the husband rather than being an equal partner. Rather than this ...the law should make both partners joint owner of all property and wealth earned during the married life irrespective of who earned what and on whose name the property was bought or registered.This removes the gender bias also. Wait what ? So much for independent women era.
ravishingravi Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 I think the judgement is fair. If you look at marriages in India, it is done with same efficiency and due diligence as an M & A. It is really quite financial arrangement when you cut through the saat phere wala crap. So, the court is merely putting a legal framework for the arrangement
yoda Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 ^^Judgement is absurd. Show us as a Banana Republic. Marry your rapist, get a paycheck from your husband, get beaten by your husband. WTF! I wonder if these judges became one via the quota system.
gult Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 I guess if such a law comes into place, alimony won't be present any more
Crookbond Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 I think the judgement is fair. If you look at marriages in India' date= it is done with same efficiency and due diligence as an M & A. It is really quite financial arrangement when you cut through the saat phere wala crap. So, the court is merely putting a legal framework for the arrangement
beetle Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 Wait what ? So much for independent women era. Why? It is gender neutral.If both parties work...the earning and wealth is shared irrespective of who earns what.If one partner stays home to look after family, then too it is a just arrangement irrespective of whether the man or the woman decides to stay. I think the inherited property of both should be kept out of the arrangement with the spouse getting a share only as natural transfer after the death of one of the spouse if stated in her/his will.Every thing earned and accumulated during the marriage should be equal.
beetle Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 No need to apologize. I just keep myself a bit updated on marriage laws. One has to know the jungle before ones goes in hunting. :two_thumbs_up:samajhdar banda!
Crookbond Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 Why? It is gender neutral.If both parties work...the earning and wealth is shared irrespective of who earns what.If one partner stays home to look after family, then too it is a just arrangement irrespective of whether the man or the woman decides to stay. I think the inherited property of both should be kept out of the arrangement with the spouse getting a share only as natural transfer after the death of one of the spouse if stated in her/his will.Every thing earned and accumulated during the marriage should be equal. Why? :dontknow: I can understand sharing if the wife stays home and takes care of the kids but this makes no sense. First, I don't like this court style rulings in a marriage - it should be left to the couple. There are enough alimony laws to achieve equality. Even if there's a law, Why should I pay my wife (or why should my wife pay for me a part of her salary) if her (or my) market value is just not good enough?
beetle Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 Why? :dontknow: I can understand sharing if the wife stays home and takes care of the kids but this makes no sense. First, I don't like this court style rulings in a marriage - it should be left to the couple. There are enough alimony laws to achieve equality. Even if there's a law, Why should I pay my wife (or why should my wife pay for me a part of her salary) if her (or my) market value is just not good enough? :omg:Seriously...market value !!:ohmy: What else is market value related? One eats better food than the other? Travel in different classes.....ek last row in movie dekhe or dusra first row mein.....tauba!:facepalm:
Crookbond Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 :omg:Seriously...market value !!:ohmy: What else is market value related? One eats better food than the other? Travel in different classes.....ek last row in movie dekhe or dusra first row mein.....tauba!:facepalm: Let me phrase my question differently Why should I mandatorily pay my wife (or why should my wife pay for me a part of her salary) if her (or my) salary is just not good enough? Before you go ahead the feminist route - read up that I have argued both ways. IMO, there are two mature adults in a marriage and the decision should be left to them, not the HC.
beetle Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 Let me phrase my question differently Why should I mandatorily pay my wife (or why should my wife pay for me a part of her salary) if her (or my) salary is just not good enough? Before you go ahead the feminist route - read up that I have argued both ways. IMO, there are two mature adults in a marriage and the decision should be left to them, not the HC. I am sure most reasonable adults can work out the arrangement on their own.This I guess is for people who can't do it on their own. In reply to the bold part of your statement..... Do you mean you both will continue to have your and her money seperate and contribute only to common needs.?That seems so sad. :((What happened to shared dukh sukh and everything else?:sniffle:
Crookbond Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 I am sure most reasonable adults can work out the arrangement on their own.This I guess is for people who can't do it on their own. In reply to the bold part of your statement..... Do you mean you both will continue to have your and her money seperate and contribute only to common needs.?That seems so sad. :((What happened to shared dukh sukh and everything else? :sniffle: Personal preference :wink2:
Recommended Posts